Friends,
Enemies and the die-hard Doubters, this is a joint writing by The
Informer and James Montgomery which will reinforce what we have
been saying all these years. Yet the so called
"patriot" community continue on their way, and they
lose, lose, lose, using the same old arguments that have not won
since The Informer was started in the late 70's.

These irrefutable
facts of case law prove that the King is still Sovereign. And the
State, being his corporation, is Sovereign. "We the people" are nothing in
the scheme of things. Neither were they when the 1787 compact of
the State was adopted via the Treaty of 1783, which is still a
contract, but with the crown. The King is a Corporation Sole.
These cases were found using Corporation Sole which is explained
in Black's 1st, & 4th Ed., and Ballantines Law Dictionaries.
For brevity, only short quotes are used. The legal premise of the
court's definitive description shows the royal Crown, operating
through the States in Union (U.S.), remains sovereign in this
country, operating behind the corporate vail as described in
Anderson's Business Law, 14th ed.

(2) The estate conveyed. In
strictness, while a CORPORATION SOLE has successors, a
corporation aggregate has none, for it continues to exist, one
and the same, as the river retains its identity, while the
currents of water that from it are continually following in and
passing out. There is a succession among the constituent members,
but none in the corporation itself. Angell & Ames on
Corporations, sec. 172.

"The treasurer of the
trustees of Davidson College is not a CORPORATION SOLE; on a
bond, therefore, payable to one as such, and his successors, a
suit cannot be sustained in the name of a successor."

That case is decisive of the
present action, and we suppose the attention of the counsel who
issued the writ was not called to it. "The treasurer of
the trustees of Davidson College" is not a
CORPORATION SOLE, and cannot be made so, EXCEPT BY AN ACT OF THE
LEGISLATURE. Fifth case North Carolina Reports (Archive) FEREBEE
v. SANDERS, 25 N.C. 360 (1843) 2 S.E. 70 Page 247

"In England corporations
are erected either by the charter of the King or by act of
Parliament, or they exist by prescription. In this State they are
created ONLY BY THE LEGISLATURE. The Legislature has heretofore
passed acts, directing bonds in certain cases to be made payable
to persons holding certain offices and to their successors in
office, as to the Governor and his successors, the chairman of
the county court and his successors. These individuals then
became SOLE CORPORATIONS, BY FORCE OF THE ACTS OF THE
LEGISLATURE, for the particular object contemplated, and a bond
taken in pursuance of those laws would go to the successor, and
not to the executor of the obligee."

These cases
were found using Sole Corporation:

"They said that a bond
given to a SOLE CORPORATION AND ITS SUCCESSORS, did not, in law
go the successor, but would go to the executor of the first
obligee that bonds given TO CORPORATIONS SOLE, AS BISHOPS,
PREBENDARIES, PARSONS, VICARS, ETC., would enure to them in their
NATURAL CAPACITY, as they cannot take a chattel or chose in
action in succession, unless by custom; and for this were cited
Bac. Ab. Obligation, D. 2; Byrd v. Wilford, Cro. Eliz., 464;
Fulwood's case, 4 Co., 65. THE ANSWER IS, THAT THE RULE RELIED
UPON DOES NOT APPLY TO THE KING. HE MAY TAKE A CHATTEL OR CHOSE
IN ACTION TO GO IN SUCCESSION THE REVENUE, NATIONAL SHIPS AND ALL
THE MATERIALS OF WAR, WHICH ARE THINGS PERSONAL IN THEIR NATURE,
GO IN SUCCESSION. SPECIALTIES AND OBLIGATIONS TAKEN TO THE USE OF
THE KING WILL GO IN THE SAME WAY. WE HAVE NO MODERN AUTHORITY ON
THIS POINT, BECAUSE, BY THE STAT., 33 HEN. 8, IT IS ENACTED, THAT
ALL OBLIGATIONS AND SPECIALITIES, TAKEN TO THE USE OF THE KING,
SHALL BE OF THE SAME NATURE AS A STATUTE STAPLE. THEY ARE NOW AS
RECORDS, AND THE USUAL REMEDY FOR A BREACH IS BY SCIRE
FACIAS." Williams on Ex'ors 653; Bingham on Executions,
228, 229. It appears from the face of this bond that the money
belongs to the State; and the act directs that the bond shall be
payable to the Governor for the time being.

"If a legal estate passed
to Mary Godley by the deeds in question, the limitations after
her life estate are void, and the whole interest vested in her.
To me it is incomprehensible how a person can take to the use of
or in the trust for himself; that he should be his own trustee;
that he should have a right to call upon himself to perform the
use or trust, and, if refused, enforce performance. So far from
such an union being recognized in law, IT IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED
MAXIM THAT IF THE TWO INTERESTS BECOME VESTED IN THE SAME PERSON,
THE USE OR TRUST IMMEDIATELY VANISHES; it does not exist for a
moment. It is true that where there is a sole corporation, as a
parson or a bishop, the individual, the sole corporation, may
hold in one capacity to the use of or in trust for the other; and
there is an unsatisfactory attempt made to make a tenant in fee
hold for himself in tail, BUT THIS IS UPON THE GROUND THAT THERE
ARE TWO PERSONS, THE ONE NATURAL, THE OTHER ARTIFICIAL, and it
was attempted to be shown that a tenant in tail is an artificial
person, created by the statute de bonis; but this shows that it
is upon the idea that there are two persons that the two
interests are supported. I must therefore discard the idea
entirely that Mary Godley held in trust for herself, and
afterwards in trust for ulterior remainders."

Well people what are you going to
do now with all this info? Sit home and wait for more? Are you
interested in obtaining freedom? These other cases below are
right in line with the Davidson case above showing how the King,
a CORPORATE SOLE, is controlling you through a process known as
citizenship (being in a joint-venture) in commercial aspects
operating in a capacity as CORPORATION SOLE under the Presumption
Rule, that the commercial courts use to justify that you have no
rights and need a lawyer because a corporation cannot represent
itself. One of the cases above states there is a natural and
artificial person tied in the same body. That is what the IRS has
identified you on a alleged IMF, when it is truly a BMF and the
fact they use a TC 148 HOLD is P, verifies the commercial status
of a CORPORATION SOLE. The case above shows how people with
trusts get nailed when they are caught saying "this is
MY TRUST." The judge said differently did he not? Read
the below cases for further proof.

Mr. Informer, after writing the
paper on corporations and reading your additional comments and
cases, I remembered a case I looked up a couple of years ago,
when doing the research for "A Country Defeated In
Victory". It was on the subject of mortmain (the
condition of land held inalienably by a corporation). Because of
our increased understanding now, it sheds more light on what was
said in this case. The reality of these cases severely limits our
remedies. The cases below prove no one can own property, without
fear of it being seized for any reason either by the State or the
king/queen of England.

Remember the States
were and still are corporations of the Crown. The King is just a
figurehead and the controlling people, like the Pope and the
International banking cabal are in the background. Just as the
President is only a figurehead in this country. He is not the one
pulling the strings. Reading
this case one has to remember the date it was decided was well
after the 1776 Revolution and well after the 1783 Treaty by which
allegedly the King gave up everything. The State is the King's
Corporation, so read carefully every word of this next case
remembering that the CORPORATE SOLE is the King and we are the
aliens. That means aliens to the contract. I am not talking about geographical aliens
but CONTRACT aliens. If you don't understand I suggest you buy my
book, Which One Are You, and read it at least three
times before trying to grasp the word Alien. An alien has no
privity to a contract and is considered a "stranger"
as noted in my book in great detail. They are talking about
contract in all the court cases. I will emphasize below in caps.

"The cases of purchases of
land by ALIENS and corporations, under the statutes of mortmain,
are not in point. It is settled, that AN ALIEN or a corporation
may, by purchase, take land, BUT CANNOT HOLD; and the doctrine is
put on the ground, that if one by an executed conveyance, which
is his own act, passes land to an ALIEN, or corporation, he shall
not have it back; but it shall belong to THE SOVEREIGN, UPON
OFFICE FOUND. It is otherwise in regard to the act of law. If the
heir, of one dying seized of land, be an ALIEN, the law will NOT
CAST THE DESCENT ON HIM, because he cannot hold beneficially, and
the law will not give with one hand and take away with the other,
but will cast the descent upon the next relation who is capable
of holding. For the same reason, an ALIEN husband does not take
as tenant by the curtesy, nor an ALIEN wife take dower.... ....It
is a well-settled rule of law in England, AND IN THIS STATE AS
WELL AS IN MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THE OTHER STATES OF THE UNION,
that an ALIEN may acquire lands by purchase, and may hold them
against all persons EXCEPT THE KING, OR THE STATE; [OK PEOPLE, I
MUST INTERJECT HERE, THE KING GAVE UP ALL RIGHTS IN THE 1783
TREATY? READ ON] but upon office found, the KING IN ENGLAND, or
THE STATE IN THIS COUNTRY, MAY SEIZE AND HAVE THEM. Co. Lit. 2; 1
Black. Com. 372. [MY GOD PEOPLE, WHAT ELSE BESIDES A 2X4 UPSIDE
OF THE HEAD WILL MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND?] Different reasons have
been given for the rule. Mr. Justice BLACKSTONE, on the page
above cited, says that "if an ALIEN could acquire a
permanent property in lands, he must owe an allegiance, equally
permanent with that property, TO THE KING OF ENGLAND, which would
probably be inconsistent with that which he owes to his own
natural liege-lord; besides, that, thereby, the nation might in
time be subject to foreign influence, and feel many other
inconveniences. Wherefore, by the civil law, such contracts were
also made void; but the prince had no such advantage of
forfeiture thereby, as with us in England. Among other reasons
which might be given for our constitution, it seems to be
intended by way of punishment for the ALIEN'S presumption in
attempting to acquire any landed property." One of the
editors in his note (8) on this page remarks that "a
political reason may be given for this, stronger than any here
adduced. If ALIENS were admitted to purchase and hold lands in
this country, it might at any time be in the power of a foreign
State to raise a powerful party amongst us; for power is ever the
concomitant of property." He illustrates his position by
referring to the course pursued by the Czarina of Russia to raise
up a party and acquire an influence in Poland whereby she was
enabled to dismember that devoted and unhappy Kingdom. In the
case of Governeur v. Roberston, 11 Wheat. Rep. 332, Mr. Justice
JOHNSTON, in delivering the opinion of the Court, speaks of the
rule as having been so long and so firmly established in the
common law, that an enquiry into the foundation of it was a mere
matter of antiquarian curiosity, and he then seems to approve
what he had seen in an elementary writer, as the reason why the
sovereign could not seize the lands until an office was found, to
wit, "that every person is supposed a natural born subject,
that is resident in the Kingdom, and that owes allegiance to the
King, till the contrary be found by office." There can be no
doubt, then, of the rule of law, whatever may be the reason for
it, that an ALIEN may acquire by purchase, land or any other
species of real estate, and may hold it against all persons
EXCEPT THE KING OR STATE; and may hold even against the
sovereign, until he may choose to have an office found, and
process thereupon to have it seized into his hands. Among the
modes of acquisition in England AND IN THIS STATE, is that by
devise, or disposition contained in a man's last will. Hence, in
England, and perhaps in this State, an alien might take real
property by devise, which would give him a good title to it, as
against all persons BUT THE SOVEREIGN...." TRUSTEES,
DAVIDSON COLLEGE v. CHAMBERS' EXECUTORS, 56 N.C. 253 (1857)

Now if you people who claim to be
sovereign, I hate to bust your bubble, here it is in this case
that you are not. Oh what deluded fools we have been thinking we
created the states and the constitution and are sovereign. This
is the biggest fraud in history pulled on you and you never knew
it. That is why I wrote "The Big Lie" and the
American's Bulletin published an expanded version called The Big
Lie III. The State is the corporation of the King and the State
created corporations are political subdivisions of the State so
read on.

"....At common law,
corporations generally have the legal capacity to take a title IN
FEE to real property. They were prohibited in England by the
statutes of mortmain, but these statutes have never been adopted
in this State, so that the common-law right to take an estate in
fee, incident to a corporation (at common law), is unlimited,
EXCEPT BY ITS CHARTER AND BY STATUTE. But the authorities go to
the extent that even when the right to acquire real property, is
limited by the charter, and the corporation transcends its power
in that respect, and for that reason is incompetent to take title
to real estate, a conveyance to it is not void, BUT ONLY THE
SOVEREIGN (HERE THE STATE) CAN OBJECT. It is valid until assailed
in a direct proceeding instituted by THE SOVEREIGN for that
purpose...." Leazern v. Hilegas, 7 Sargt., 313; Gonndie v.
Northamton Water Co., 7 Pa. St., 233; National Bank v. Whiting,
103 U.S., 99; Angel & Ames on Corporations, Secs. 152-777;
Runyon v. Coster, 14 Pet., 122; The Bank v. Poiteaux, 3 Rand
(Va.), 136 Case is also cited in: MALLETT v. SIMPSON, 94 N.C. 37
(1886)and CROSS v. R. R., 172 N.C. 119 (1916).

I know you can't believe what you
read and probably cannot comprehend what you read, but there it
is. This is why Eminent Domain exists and the State corporation
of the King can seize land whenever it damn well please. Since
the Railroad is a corporation of the United States and all States
are under the Treaty of 1783, whereby the King DID NOT grant
everything away, you might want to pull and read the next entire
case. I will only quote excerpts and they are not out of context
to show my point because when you read the entire case you will
have to concur.

Where the owner of lands brings
action against a railroad company involving its right of way
thereon, it is not open to the plaintiff to show that the
defendant was acting ultra vires in its use and occupation, such
position being available ONLY TO THE STATE.

5. Same-- Deeds and
Conveyances.

Where a railroad company takes
a conveyance of lands for use beyond its character powers, the
deed is not a valid, but only voidable upon THE OBJECTION OF THE
STATE.

The defendant could acquire
title by grant or deed, and why not by adverse possession for
twenty years, which tolled the entry originally, because there
arose therefrom the presumption of a grant or deed? If the land
had been conveyed to the defendant, and the act of acquiring and
holding it was ultra vires, NO ONE BUT THE STATE COULD COMPLAIN,
AND A PRIVATE PERSON WOULD NOT BE HEARD TO ATTACK THE TITLE ON
THAT GROUND. NO ONE BUT THE STATE can take advantage of the
defect that the purchase was ultra vires. This principle is fully
sustained by the authorities. Like an ALIEN WHO IS FORBIDDEN by
the local law to acquire real estate, he may take and hold title
until "office found." Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 604.
In the Leazern case the corporation had been restricted by its
charter from purchasing land except for certain purposes, which
it had transcended, and the title was assailed upon the ground
that the purchase was void, but the Court held:

"The corporation might
take independent of a provision in the act of incorporation, and
the title of the corporation, like that of an alien, would be
defeasible only by the State. No one can take advantage of the
defect (of title) but the State." In another case it was
held: "When a corporation was authorized by its charter to
purchase real estate for certain purposes, but for no other, a
deed executed to it by one having capacity to convey vested the
title in the corporation, and such title could be assailed, on
the ground that the purchase was ultra vires, only the State or
by a stockholder." Hough v. Land Co., 73 Ill., 23.

But the controlling case and
granddaddy of them all is:- TRUSTEES, DAVIDSON COLLEGE v.
CHAMBERS' EXECUTORS, 56 N.C. 253 (1857)

"The executors admit that
they have the fund in their hands, and express their readiness to
pay it over to whomsoever the Court may declare that it ought to
be paid. The question is thus fairly raised between the
plaintiffs and the next of kin of the testator, and it becomes
the duty of the Court to decide it according to the established
principles of equity.

In the very able arguments made for
the plaintiffs, the counsel have urged their claim upon two
grounds: First, its analogy to the acquisition of land by an
alien; and, secondly, its analogy to the principle upon which the
statutes of mortmain in England were construed. I will proceed to
consider them both, and will commence with that of the alien.

It is a well-settled rule of law in
England, AND IN THIS STATE as well as in most, if not all, OF THE
OTHER STATES OF THE UNION, that an alien may acquire lands by
purchase, and may hold them against all persons except the King,
or the State; but upon OFFICE FOUND, the King in England, or the
State in this country, may seize and have them. Co. Lit. 2; 1
Black. Com. 372.

SOUND FAMILIAR PEOPLE? READ ON. "There
can be no doubt, then, of the rule of law, whatever may be the
reason for it, that an alien may acquire by purchase, land or any
other species of real estate, and may hold it against all persons
EXCEPT THE KING OR STATE; and may hold even against the
sovereign, until he may choose to have an OFFICE FOUND, and
process thereupon to have it seized into his hands. Among the
modes of acquisition in England and in this State, is that by
devise, or disposition contained in a man's last will. Hence, in
England, and perhaps in this State, an alien might take real
property by devise, which would give him a good title to it, as
against all persons BUT THE SOVEREIGN. [And you thought you
were the sovereign?] In analogy to this, the counsel for the
plaintiffs have contended that their clients have the right to
take the whole legacy bequeathed to them by Mr. Chambers, though
it may be that by force of the restrictive clause in their
charter, the State might, if it saw fit, take from them the
excess over the value of the property which they were authorized
to own."

What is this "office
found?" Here is the definition from Bouvier's 1870
Dictionary; "When an inquisition is made to the king's
use of any thing, by virtue of office of him who inquires, and
the inquisition is found, it is said to be office found. See
Inquest of office." So we go to Inquest of office and
it says; "An inquiry made by the king's officer, his
sheriff, coroner, or escheator, either virtute officii, or by
writ sent to him for that purpose, or by commissioners especially
appointed, concerning any matter that entitles the king to the
possession of lands or tenements, goods or chattels. It is done
by a jury of no determinate number, -- either twelve, or more, or
less. An inquest of office was bound to find for the king upon
the direction of the court. The reason given is that an inquest
concluded no man of his right, but only gave the king an
opportunity to enter, so that he could save his right tried. An
inquest of office was also called, simply, "office." As
to "office" in the United States, see 1 Caines, N.Y.
426; 7 Cranch 603." Now people, go read Black's Fourth
Ed., it has been incorporated into the United States. Now pull
and read Phillips v Moore, 100 US 208, 25 L.Ed. 603

IT GETS EVEN BETTER, OR WORSE
DEPENDING UPON YOUR VIEW.

"In the case of Rouche v.
Williamson, 3 Ire. Rep. 141, this Court suggested the following
explanation: "It has occurred to us, that perhaps the
doctrine may be thus accounted for and explained. In real and in
mixed actions strictly so called, the demandant seeks to obtain,
by means of the law, the seizin of a parcel of land or a
tenement, whereof he has never had seizin, or of the seizin
whereof he has been unlawfully deprived. Now, as the law will not
aid aliens to get land, because by such means THE REALM MAY BE
IMPOVERISHED, (The King v. Holland, Allen, 14), it will withhold
its aid to restore, or to give him seizin, though, while he
remains seized, it will protect him against wrongdoers. It may
be, also, that while the alien is seized, the law regards him AS
HOLDING FOR THE USE OF THE SOVEREIGN, (1 Inst. 186, a), but the
law deems him an improper person to take such seizin for the
King, without the King's license." It is true that the Court
held that the alien might maintain ejectment; but they put the
decision expressly upon the ground, that as against the tenant in
possession, the lessor had the right to the possession of the
land, of which such tenant had unjustly deprived him."

Right here people,
is enough proof that the King, operating through the State (his
corporation in union with other corporations under a common
constitution devised in 1787, which was initiated by previous
treaties), is still the real owner and you, only as an alien to
the contract, are a tenant in possession, See OFFICE FOUND above. I don't care whether
you have a deed or not, it is only a possession deed till the
King or the State or one of their corporate subdivisions want it.
Don't pay the land use tax and your outta there in a heart beat
and another Ryot Tenure takes over. I had written about this in
my Which One Are You book in 1990 where on page 55 I stated we
are nothing but Ryot Tenure on the land. Ok, back to the case.

"Upon an examination of
all of them, except that of 9th George 2nd, it will be seen that
they did not make void the purchase of lands by the corporations,
but declared that if it was made without licenses from the king,
and the lords of whom the lands were holden, the lands should be
forfeited, and the lord, or king, as the case might be, should
have the right to enter for the forfeiture, and seize the lands
for his own use. It will be seen further, that the king could not
enter until office found; Shelf. on Mort. 10, citing Hayne v.
Redfern, 12 East. Rep. 96; Evans v. Evans, 5 Barn. and Cres. 587,
note (e); S. C. 8 Dowl. and Ryl. 399. The statute of 9 George 2,
ch. 36, was intended to apply to conveyances and devises of
lands, or any interest in them made to individual trustees, as
well as to bodies politic, for charitable purposes, and it
declared all such as were not executed as therein prescribed, to
be void. Under this statute, then, all the forbidden conveyances
and devises were construed to be void, and in the case of a
devise, the heir-at-law was held to be entitled to the land.
Shelf. on Mort. 204.

I have hereinbefore referred to
the opinion of Chancellor KENT, that none of these statutes of
Mortmain had been adopted in any State of the Union except
Pennsylvania. I think I may safely assert that not one of them
has ever been in force in North Carolina. I do not find in our
reports any trace of their existence here. It is true, that the
statute of 18th Edw. 1st, enacting that "no feoffment shall
be made to assure land in main," is inserted by the revisors
of 1820, in their list of British statutes then in force. (See 1
Rev. Code of 1820, p. 87). It may well be doubted whether it ever
was so; but if it were, it was certainly repealed when the
statutes were revised in 1836. (See 1 Rev. Stat. ch. 1, sec. 2).
There has been no necessity for any such restraints upon
corporations by statutory enactments in this country. In England
it was otherwise; and the difference in the condition of the two
countries with regard to their bodies politic, and the resulting
difference in their legislation concerning them, is clearly
stated by the Court in a case to which I shall refer more
particularly hereafter. "A capacity to purchase and alien
land, unless specially restrained by its charter, or by statute,
has been held to be an incident, at common law, to every
corporation. This general power, it has been found necessary in
England to restrain by statute; and there, their powers in this
respect are understood to be general and unlimited, except so far
as controlled by such statutes. A large proportion of the
corporations there hold their corporate rights by prescription.
This supposes the grant no where to be found in written form. The
uncertainty of the limits of the powers granted, and the great
extent of powers claimed, at an early period created a necessity
of limiting them by act of parliament. The statutes of Mortmain
have this effect, in reference to purchasing and holding lands.
In this country, few instances can be found of the existence of
corporations, whose charters did not originate in express
legislative enactment, and are not to be found printed in the
statute books. In these cases, the grant of power is before us.
THE CHARTER DEFINES THE GRANT, with its restrictions and
limitations. Unless some other statute, enacted by the same
authority, either general or special, can be found, enlarging or
restricting those powers, WE LOOK NO FURTHER FOR THE RIGHTS OF
THE BODY CORPORATE."

Ok people, what is this "Charter"
they speak of? The 1783 Treaty in conjunction with the 1787
Constitution. The States, by prescription from the King, by
Treaty, hold the land for the King under Legislative enactment
because they are His corporations. They in turn, parcel out the
land to other corporations, and aliens (you) because you are an
alien friend allowed to only hold the land in TAIL for your use,
but the King still owns it and the State is his agent. Got to
remember people that Statute "De Donis" converted all
such estates fee simple to estates tail. Did not know that did
you? So why is it that you get a document stating in fee simple?
Because they slyly made you a CORPORATE SOLE, but not like the
King. That is why the United States, the corporator of all the
states into a Union can control all the land it owns and if a
State cedes land from its corporate domain to the corporate
United States the King still owns it and that is why we are
considered by the States as "corporation sole"
for that is the only way they can collect a tax. Remember Butler
v Godley where you are considered two characters? Remember that
legal entity, corporate, name on your IMF. Remember the CP 55
UK/US Treaty designation and only corporations can be taxed? Why
does the IRS come after you using a CP 515, 516, 517 and 518
notices which are only designed for a BUSINESS Entity? Are you a
corporate person of artificial character called a "resident"
in legal terms, thereby being a "citizen" (26 CFR 1.1-1
and 26 USC sec. 1) in "joint-venture" and
therefore a subject "to the jurisdiction thereof"
because you are presumed to be a corporate sole for taxing
purposes because you have the privilege of living on the Kings
land held in trust by the corporate State and United States? You
are also in fee simple so that after your body dies the Corporate
Sole still lives on. Gottcha again, didn't they?

Our forefathers were, in effect, at
the mercy of their business ventures with lands and assets coming
to them as a result, and also any lands or rem property they may
have inherited from their ancestors. Why? Well as a matter of
settled English common law, anyone declared to have committed
treason, automatically forfeited any estates or rem property to
the king, without a trial. Everyone of our fore fathers that
signed the Declaration of Independence were declared traitors and
were to be hung if found by British troops. Also, after
independence was so called won, everyone swearing their new
allegiance to the United States became aliens also, subject to
have their estates forfeited to the king, when a senior land
holder died and Office found. So ask yourself. Did the king have
any leverage over our fore fathers when they negotiated the 1783
Peace Treaty? Is this why even though we said we won in the
history books the king granted us the lands in America. Does the
defeated country ever grant lands to the victor, or do they not
always become property of the Conqueror? This fact along with the
above and below court cases prove, because English common law was
not defeated and retained by the new states, the king's
corporations continued unchanged. All that took place was a
reorganization of the king's corporations he set up in America,
into individual state corporations, who transferred their
corporate sovereignty over to the United States. The war was over
in 1781, the Treaty was signed in 1783, the United States
Corporation was officially started in 1787. However, the king
signed off on its creation. Read the 1783 Treaty again, the
United States corporation is mentioned four years before it was
chartered and the 6th section was added as a condition for the
fore fathers not to lose their estates, and as a matter of quid
quo pro, the kind not forfeit his holdings and corporation, and
thanks to English common law being recognized in the States the
forefathers new there was nothing they could do about it, but
play word games to cover it up. Patrick Henry recognized their
game, using such terms as "We the People" or
the united States being change to United States. Mr. Informer, I
think this would be a good place to inject the following case,
HAMILTON v. BROWN, 161 U.S. 256 (1896). Now those of you in Texas
or in other States that claim to be in a Republic not subject to
the laws or jurisdiction of the state in which you live, you
better reserve judgment for just a minute longer. I know those in
Texas claiming they live in a Republic truly believe this, but
you have not seen the debilitating fact of the Republic of Texas
claiming English common law. Where English common law exists, so
does the king's corporation, and all grants stemming therefrom.
Sorry, but it is true, this trumps every argument except one. A
grant of land preceding the king's incorporation, the grant from
God Almighty that all men are tenants on His land, and are to be
stewards of it. Any man cannot own the land as the king and Pope
claim, they are only receivers of the grant from God Almighty
like all men, co equal. Now the court case. The subject matter of
the case was a man owing a portion of land in the Texas Republic
died, he had heirs living in another state. The land was claimed
by the later formed State of Texas, by the Sheriff. The land was
later sold. The heirs of the dead man tried to sue for possession
of their relative's land. They lost and the Supreme court upheld
their lose.

"By the law of England,
before the Declaration of Independence, the lands of a man dying
intestate and without lawful heirs reverted by escheat to the
king as the sovereign lord; but the king's title was not complete
without an actual entry upon the land, or judicial proceedings to
ascertain the want of heirs and devisees. Attorney General v.
Mercer, 8 App. Cas. 767, 772; 2 Bl. Comm. 245. The usual form of
proceeding for this purpose was by an inquisition or inquest of
office before a jury, which was had upon a commission out of the
court of chancery, but was really a proceeding at common law;
and, if it resulted in favor of the king, then, by virtue of
ancient statutes, any one claiming title in the lands might by
leave of that court, file a traverse, in the nature of a plea or
defense to the king's claim, and not in the nature of an original
suit. Lord Somers, in The Bankers' Case, 14 How. State Tr. 1, 83;
Ex parte Webster, 6 Ves. 809; Ex parte Gwydir, 4 Madd. 281; In re
Parry, L. R. 2 Eq. 95; People v. Cutting, 3 Johns. 1; Briggs v.
Light-Boats, 11 Allen, 157, 172. The inquest of office was a
proceeding in rem. When there was a proper office found for the
king, that was notice to all persons who had claims to come in
and assert them, and, until so traversed, it was conclusive in
the king's favor. Bayley, J., in Doe v. Redfern, 12 East, 96,
103; 16 Vin. Abr. 86, pl. 1.....By the constitution of 1836 of
the republic of Texas (article 4, 13 ), it was provided that the
legislature should, 'as early as practicable, introduce, by
statute, the common law of England, with such modifications as
our circumstances, in [161 U.S. 256, 264] their judgment, may
require.' 2 Chart. & Const. 1757. And by the statutes of
Texas, from the time of its existence as an independent republic,
the common law of England, so far as not inconsistent with the
constitution and laws of Texas, has been declared to be, together
with such constitution and laws, the rule of decision, and to
continue in force until altered or repealed by the legislature.
Tex. St. Jan. 20, 1840; Pasch. Dig. (4th Ed.) art 978; Rev. St.
1879, 3128; Courand v. Vollmer, 31 Tex. 397; Barrett v. Kelly,
Id. 476. By the constitution of the state of Texas of 1845, it
was provided, in article 4, 10, that the district court should
have original jurisdiction 'of all suits in behalf of the state
to recover penalties, forfeitures and escheats'; and in article
13, 4, as follows: 'All fines, penalties, forfeitures and
escheats which have accrued to the republic of Texas under the
constitution and laws shall accrue to the state of Texas; and the
legislature shall by law provide a method for determining what
lands may have been forfeited or escheated.' 2 Chart. Const.
1773, 1781. ....'The object of such a proceeding is not simply to
have a decree declaring the escheat, and vesting the title in the
state, but, by and through process to be issued under the
judgment, to divest, not only the title of persons entitled to
take the property of the deceased as his heirs, if perchance any
such there be, but also, by a sale, to divest the title of the
state, and to start, and confer upon the purchaser, a new title,
deraigned directly from the sovereign of the soil. Rev. St. 1777-
1780...." HAMILTON v. BROWN, 161 U.S. 256 (1896)

I love the above case because when
you read Texas v White, 74 U.S Wall 7, which is only 43 pages
long, or you can read it in the eight pages of The Informer's "Would
You Use The Constitution as a Source of Rights"
published in 1993, you will immediately see why James included
the Brown case. So although, as James says that Republics are
under the Crown, it also shows that when people claim that they
are forming a "de jure" Republic, it is an
impossibility until they oust the Pope and King who are the
contractual heirs to the land. You cannot dispute this because of
the evidence laid out here. If it is, it is the knee jerk, gut
reaction I spoke of in the beginning. The same reaction that has
got us nowhere so far. The court in Texas v White specifically
said, "By this act, the new State and the people in the
new State, were invested with all the rights, and became SUBJECT
to all the responsibilities and duties of the ORIGINAL
constitution." Hmmm, NEW STATE, INVESTED with rights?
What was the old State? What rights, the rights dictated and
granted by whom? I thought people had all the RIGHTS they needed,
why are they invested? By golly there we go with words that
people think they know what they mean. Do you know what invested
really means in the context of the Brown and White case? Let me
show you what it means and in doing so it makes the Brown and
White case even clearer. Out of Ballantine's Dictionary invested
means, "See invest; invested capital; investment. So
lets look at investment and the particular section specific to
the above two cases." This word, within the meaning of a
clause authorizing executors and trustees to retain investments
or any property in which the estate may be "invested"
at the time of the testator's death, means property from which an
income or profit is expected to be derived in the ordinary course
of events." Does the King own the property? Does the
King expect a portion of the proceeds from that property as
stated in the cases James mentioned? Are you nothing but a
trustee when you buy the "invested" rights
only granted to you by the sovereign's agent, the State? Do you
now know why you pay property taxes? Ok James, back to you.

The ruling of the below case should
set everyone down, but the Informer and I have been saying, and
continue to say this is the condition in this country. Also,
contained in the Blackstone quote, it is mentioned, rights of the
British in their declaration of liberties, not so, read the
Declaration of Rights 1689, third section, it is made clear the
rights of the corporation and the grantors take precedent. "Office
Found", depends on the context, if talking about the
king it refers to an heir or successor and removing holdings from
aliens, if talking about sub corporations, the corporations are
protecting their grants to keep the grants out of the hands of an
alien friend or enemy. In either case once office is found the
land or possession reverts back to the corporation, state or
king, the sovereign. Gee, I wonder if this is why we were all
declared to be enemy aliens in 1933? It was cited as
"Trading with the enemy" and we were declared the enemy
by 48 Stat 1 by Roosevelt. Read it in the opening parts of the
statute.

I am also citing the land mark
case: FAIRFAX'S DEVISEE v. HUNTER'S LESSEE, 11 U.S. 603 (1812) It
absolutely defines a Treaty is the Supreme law of the land and
how the Treaties of 1783 and 1794 protected the kings holdings,
period. This is the same as the supreme court case the Informer
cited in his The New History of America on page 19, that also,
definitively states the Treaty is above the Constitution because
it created the Constitution. In the case below you will see what
the king has been doing is recapturing corporate holdings that
came about after the two Treaties were passed, because the
holdings were in the hands of aliens. After this case read the
three supreme court cases that echo this North Carolina case.

"Military conquerors of
foreign states in time of war may doubtless displace the courts
of the conquered country, and may establish civil tribunals in
their place for administering justice; and in such cases it is
unquestionably true that the jurisdiction of suits of every
description is transferred to the new tribunals. United States v.
Rice, 4 Wheat. 246; Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164....Towns,
provinces, and territories, says Halleck, which are retaken from
the conqueror during the war, or which are restored to their
former sovereign by the treaty of peace, are entitled to the
right of postliminy; and the original sovereign owner, on
recovering his dominion over them, whether by force of arms or by
treaty, is bound to restore them to their former state. In other
words, he acquires no new right over them, either by the act of
recapture or of restoration. . . . He rules not by any newly
acquired title which relates back to any former period, but by
his antecedent title, which, in contemplation of law, has never
been divested. Halleck, Int. Law, 871. " DOW v.
JOHNSON, 100 U.S. 158 (1879) "It is clear, therefore,
that this doctrine has no sufficient sanction in authority, and
it will be found equally unsupported by principle or analogy.
[152 U.S. 505, 509] 'The general rule is positively against it,
for the books, old and new, uniformly represent the king as a
competent grantor in all cases in which an individual may grant,
and any person in esse, and not civiliter mortuus, as a competent
grantee. Femes covert, infants, aliens, persons attainted of
treason or felony, clerks, convicts, and many others, are
expressly enumerated as competent grantees. Perkins, Grant, 47,
48, 51, etc.; Comy. Dig. 'Grant,' B 1. It behooves those,
therefore, who would except aliens, when the immediate object of
the king's grant, to maintain the exception." MANUEL v.
WULFF, 152 U.S. 505 (1894)

"Whether the plaintiffs in
error were entitled to be allowed, in the assessment of damages,
for the value of prospective gold mines in tract 39, designated
on the map of the park, was a question mooted at the trial, and
the action of the court in striking out the testimony offered to
show such value, and in holding that, if there are any deposits
of gold in this ground, they are the property of the United
States, is complained of in the 7th, 8th, and 9th assignments of
errors. The history of the tract in question was gone into at
great length, and various patents of the province and state of
Maryland were put in evidence. The court below held that, as by
the grant of Charles I. to Lord Baltimore, 'all veins, mines, and
quarries, as well opened as hidden, already found, or that shall
be found, within the regions, islands, or limits aforesaid, of
gold, silver, gems, and precious stones,' passed to the grantee,
he yielding unto the king, his heirs and successors, 'the
one-fifth part of all gold and silver ore which shall happen,
from time to time, to be found;' and as the confiscation of the
proprietary's title in 1780 vested the same in the state of [147
U.S. 282, 307] Maryland; and as also the royalty of one fifth
part of the gold and silver reserved to the king had also become,
by the Revolution, vested in the state, -consequently the United
States succeeded to the state's title by the act of cession of
1791." SHOEMAKER v. U S, 147 U.S. 282 (1893)

"The necessity of an
inquest of office was considered by this court at an early day in
two cases. In Smith v. Maryland, 6 Cranch, 286, it was held that
by the confiscation act of Maryland, passed in 1780, before the
adoption of the constitution, interests in land were completely
divested by operation of law, without office found. The validity
of the act was apparently not considered. [165 U.S. 413, 432] The
case of Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 7 Cranch, 603,
involved the title to a large tract of land in Virginia, granted
to Lord Fairfax. The lands were devised by will to Denny Fairfax,
a British subject, who never became a citizen of the United
States, but always resided in England, and was an alien enemy. In
1789 the governor of the commonwealth of Virginia granted the
lands by patent to Hunter, a citizen of Virginia, who entered
into possession prior to the institution of the action. It was
the opinion of the court that the title acquired by an alien by
purchase is not divested until office found, although it was
contended that the common law as to inquests of office had been
dispensed with by statute, so as to make the grant to Hunter
complete and perfect. As to this point, Mr. Justice Story
observed (page 622): 'We will not say that it was not competent
for the legislature (supposing no treaty in the way), by a
special act, to have vested the land in the commonwealth without
an inquest of office for the cause of alienage. But such an
effect ought not, upon principles of public policy, to be
presumed upon light ground. That an inquest of office should be
made in cases of alienage is a useful and important restraint
upon public proceedings. ... It prevents individuals from being
harassed by numerous suits introduced by litigious grantees. It
enables the owner to contest the question of alienage directly by
a traverse of the office. It affords an opportunity for the
public to know the nature, the value, and the extent of its
acquisitions, pro defectu hoeredis. And, above all, it operates
as a salutary suppression of that corrupt influence which the
avarice of speculation might otherwise urge upon the legislature.
The common law, therefore, ought not to be deemed to be repealed,
unless the language of a statute be clear and explicit for this
purpose.' It was further held that during the war the lands in
controversy were never, by any public law, vested in the
commonwealth. It was also held that the treaty of 1794 with Great
Britain completely protected and confirmed the title of Denny
Fairfax. Mr. Justice Johnson, dissenting, was of opinion that the
interest acquired by Denny Fairfax under the devise was a mere
scintilla juris, and that [165 U.S. 413, 433] scintilla was
extinguished by the grant of the state vesting the tract in
Hunter; that it was competent for the state to assert its rights
over an alien's property by other means than by an inquest of
office; that in Great Britain, in the case of treason, an inquest
of office had been expressly dispensed with by the statute of 33
Hen. VIII. c. 30; and that he saw no reason why it was not
competent for the legislature of Virginia to do the same."
ATLANTIC & P R CO v. MINGUS, 165 U.S. 413 (1897)

Now people, you have to go back and
see what The Informer said earlier about "Office
Found," as I am about to quote the following case and
Blackstone on this issue. This should dispel any doubts that people
might have left that THEY are sovereign, they never have been,
and are but peons in the grand scheme of things. In no way do we
control Congress or the State legislators. In no way are "we
the people", the bosses of any legislator despite what a lot
of so called "patriots" want to believe. The
constitution was worthless to start with and will always remain
worthless to enslave people.
Patrick Henry and some other anti-federalists saw this but no one
would take heed and so it has escalated to the present day regime
having more control than they ever thought over the people. The
King reins supreme through his Legislators in this country as
they keep the sovereign's agent (the State), a fiction, in
complete control.

"Substantial evidence that
British Corporations established an office in the United States
under a resident agent, that the office collected dividends from
vast holdings of American securities and did countless other
tasks essential to the maintenance of a large investment
portfolio, constituted sufficient basis for Tax Court's finding
that corporations maintained an "office or place of
business" in the United States and were taxable as
"resident foreign corporations" C.I.R. v. Scottish
American Inv. Co., U.S., 65 S.Ct. 169, 172, 323 U.S. 119, 89
L.Ed. 113. Words and Phrases

"332. b. Inquest of
office, etc. Such is that of inquisition or inquest of office:
which is an inquiry made by the king's officer, his sheriff,
coroner or escheator, virtute officii (by virtue of their
office), or by writ to them sent for that purpose, or by
commissioners specially appointed, concerning any matter that
entitles the king to the possession of lands or tenements, goods
or chattels. This is done by a jury of no determinate number;
being either twelve, or less, or more. As, to inquire, whether
the king's tenant for life died seised, whereby the reversion
accrues to the king; whether A, who held immediately of the
crown, died without heirs; be attainted of treason, whereby his
estate is forfeited to the crown: whether C, who has purchased
lands, be an alien; which is another cause of forfeiture: whether
D be an idiot a nativitate (from his birth); and therefore,
together with his lands, appertains to the custody of the king:
and other questions of like import, concerning both the
circumstances of the tenant and the value or identity of the
lands. These inquests of office were more frequently in practice
than at present, during the continuance of the military tenures
amongst us: when, upon the death of every one of the king's
tenants' an inquest of office was held, called an inquisitio post
mortem (an inquest after death), to inquire of what lands he died
seised, who was his heir, and of what age, in order to entitle
the king to his marriage, wardship, relief, primer-seisin, or
other advantages, as the circumstances of the case might turn
out. To superintend and regulate these inquiries the court of
wards and liveries was instituted by statute 32 Henry VIII, c. 46
(Court of Wards, 1540), which was abolished at the restoration of
the King Charles the Second, together with the oppressive tenures
upon which it was founded. With regard to other matters, the
inquests of office still remain in force, and are taken upon
proper occasions; being extended not only to lands, but also to
goods and chattels personal, as in the case of wreck,
treasure-trove an the like; and especially as to forfeitures for
offenses. For every jury which tries a man for treason or felony,
every coroner's inquest that sits upon a felo de se, or one
killed by chance-medley, is, not only with regard to chattels,
but also as to real interest, in all respects an inquest of
office; and if they find the treason or felony, or even the
flight of the party accused (though innocent) the king is
thereupon, by virtue of this office found, entitled to have his
forfeitures; and also, in the case of chance-medley, he or his
grantees are entitled to such things by way of deodand as have
moved to the death of the party. These inquests of office were
devised by law, as an authentic means to give the king his right
by solemn matter of record; without which he in general can
neither take nor part from anything. For it is a part of the
liberties of England, and greatly for the safety of the subject,
that the king may not enter upon or seize any man's possessions
upon bare surmises without the intervention of a jury. It is,
however, particularly enacted by the statue 33 Henry VIII, c 20
(Treason, 1541), that, in case of attainder for high treason, the
king shall have the forfeiture instantly, without any inquisition
of office. And, as the king hath no title at all to any property
of this sort before office found, therefore by the statute 18
Henry VI, c. 6 (Crown Grants, 1439), it was enacted that all
letters patent or grants of lands and tenements before office
found, or returned into the exchequer, shall be void. And, by the
bill of rights at the revolution, 1 W.&M., st. 2, c. 2
(1688), it is declared that all grants and promises of fines and
forfeitures of particular persons before conviction (which is
here the inquest of office) are illegal and void; which indeed
was the law of the land in the reign of Edward the Third. With
regard to real property, if an office be found for the king, it
puts him in immediate possession, without the trouble of a formal
entry, provided a subject in the like case would have had right
to enter; and the king shall receive all the mesne or
intermediate profits from the time that his title accrued. As, on
the other hand, by the articuli super cartas, if the king's
escheator or sheriff seize lands into the king's hand without
cause, upon taking them out of the king's hand again, the party
shall have the mesne profits restored to him." Blackstone's
Law commentaries, book III

The Fairfax case was excellent and
I am going to quote small portions to whet people's appetite to
go and get this case and read it.

" . . and being also
agreed never to have been escheated and seized into the hands of
the commonwealth of Virginia, pursuant to certain acts of
assembly concerning escheators, and never to have been the
subject of any inquest of office, was contained and included in a
certain patent, bearing date the 30th April, 1789, under the hand
of the then governor, and the seal of the commonwealth of
Virginia, purporting that the land in question, is granted by the
said commonwealth unto David Hunter [the lessor of the Plaintiff
in ejectment] and his heirs forever, by virtue and in
consideration of a land office treasury warrant, issued the 23d
January, 1788. The said lessor of the Plaintiff in ejectment is,
and always has been a citizen of Virginia; and in pursuance of
his said patent entered into the land in question, and was
thereof possessed, prior to the institution of the said action of
ejectment.

6th. The definitive treaty of
peace concluded in the year 1783, between the United States of
America and Great Britain, and also the several acts of the
assembly of Virginia, concerning the premises, are referred to as
making a part of the case agreed.

Treaties and acts of assembly
referred to.

Provisional articles of peace
between Great Britain and the United States, concluded 30th
November, 1782, Art. 5 and 6.

Definitive treaty of peace between
the same powers, concluded 3d September, 1783, Art. 5 and 6.

'Whereas it is stipulated, by
the sixth article of the treaty of peace between the United
States and the king of Great Britain, that there shall be no
future confiscations [11 U.S. 603, 609] made; Be it enacted, That
no future confiscations shall be made, any law to the contrary
notwithstanding; provided, that this act shall not extend to any
suit, depending in any Court, which was commenced prior to the
ratification of the treaty of peace.'

'An act for sequestering
British property,' &c. [Oct. 1777, ch. 9. vid. Chy. Rev. p.
64.] All the property and estate whatsoever of British subjects
is, by this act, sequestered into the hands of commissioners of
sequestration, by them to be preserved, according to certain
regulations, for the purpose of being restored or otherwise dealt
with, according of the king of Great Britain should act towards
the property of citizens of the commonwealth, in the like
circumstances. The preamble declaring that inasmuch as the
British sovereign was not yet known to have set the example of
confiscation, 'the public faith and the law and usages of
nations,' required the like forbearance on our part."

And further on in the case are
these statements; "3d. That the treaty of peace
prohibited the confiscation of the estate, whether by inquest of
office, or by any other mode whatsoever; and so operated a
release and confirmation to the British proprietor, whose title
was again explicitly acknowledged and confirmed by the treaty of
1794; which completely removed every incapacity and disability
that might possibly be supposed to remain in him, as a landed
proprietor.

4th. That the patent, under
which the Defendant in error claims the land in question, was not
authorized by any [11 U.S. 603, 613] pre-existing law of
Virginia, but was in direct contravention of the treaty of peace,
and of the statute of Virginia, enacted expressly in execution of
the treaty, and strictly enjoining the observance of its
stipulations with good faith: and, therefore, the said patent
conveys no title to the Defendant in error.

AND YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD A CHANCE AT
ALLODIAL TITLE? Think again my dear deluded people when reading
further into the case. Is your blood boiling yet? Here is a
little more heat.

"1. Upon the first point
they relied upon the express words of the grant, from the crown
to the original patentees, and the following cases: 2, Wash. 113,
Picket v. Dowdall-id. 120, Johnson v. Buffington-id. 125, Curry
v. Burns-1, Wash. 34, Birch v. Alexander-and 2, Dall. 99, McCurdy
v. Potts.

2. The estate, by the devise,
vested in Denny Fairfax, who continued to hold the same till the
treaty of peace. Although an alien enemy, he could take and hold
until office found. The law is perfectly settled that an alien
can take by purchase, although he cannot take by descent. In this
respect there is no difference between an alien enemy and an
alien friend. He took a fee simple subject to the right of the
sovereign to seize it. Co. Lit. 2, (b)-5, Co. 52, Page's case-9.
Co. 141(a)-2, Bl. Com. 293, Powell on aev. 316-2, Vent. 270.

It is essential to the
Plaintiffs title that the estate should have vested in Denny
Fairfax, for if it did not, it could not escheat to the
commonwealth under whom the Plaintiff claims. It is one of the
principles of the common law, upon which the security of private
property from the grasp of power depends, that the crown can take
only by matter of record. 3, Bl. Com. 259. Those authorities
which say an alien may take, but cannot hold, clearly mean that
he cannot hold against the claim of the crown asserted in a legal
manner-Co. Lit. 2, a & b. An alien may suffer a common
recovery-Goldsb. 102. 4, Leon, 82. Bro. tit. Denizen and Alien,
17. And it is expressly laid down that only the tenant of the
freehold can suffer a common recovery-3, Bl. Com. 356-7. But he
could not be tenant of the freehold unless the estate vested and
remained in him-1, Bac. ab. 133."

I Think that is all I'm going to
give, as it is sufficient at this point that you are totally
exploded over this or are brain-dead by all the false teaching of
government dis-informationists and people who truly believe they
are sovereigns. The question is to them is, if all of us are
sovereign how is it that we allow "them" to control our
lives? Why are so many who claim to be sovereign citizens; (1) In
jail for; a. tax crimes they are not guilty of not paying b. not
obtaining a driver license c. not registering their household
good called a car d. being asked for "your papers
comrade" at anytime the police want to ask and thrown in
jail for any period of time e. having to exhibit a social slave
number to do anything f. failing to present your private papers
to a private IRS collection agency, not of this government g
through z, any other thing you can think of that your rights are
abrogated in the name of "government" that a
sovereign would not have to put up with.

Is this the mark of a free
sovereign among the many slaves? Why, if these people claim they
are sovereign and government has no right to do this and take my
land for not paying a tribute to the Crown, do they allow them to
put them out on the street, or why do the continually pay a
yearly rent tax on the land they merely hold in possession for
the King?

James and I have a theory that is
solid on how we can take possession for the real Sovereign who
owns the land and possession of ourselves so we are not "subject"
to any other sovereign but the Almighty. Remember that the King,
the Pope, the President nor any man is your sovereign UNLESS you
want them to be. It is evident that most people don't even
recognize the Covenant with the True Sovereign and have forsaken
Him for another. If you can't recognize that you are a stranger
to the King's Covenant, an alien, and are not a party to the
constitution (contract/compact) Lord help you all, you will never
win.

James mentioned the word
"reversion" in his article, "Corporations How Long". If the Lord Almighty
created the land and gave it to man to steward, who really owns
the land? Can the Pope who claims no man can own land as he is
the vicar under the tenets of the Catholic "religion?"
Can the King through conquest? Can the fictional corporation
soles, States or United States? Can even the lowly county or
townships? The answer is NO! NO! and NO! So read below for a
hint. We don't claim to have all the answers but one has to come
to terms as to, who do you want to be your master and true
Sovereign over you. Can't have your cake and eat it too, got to
choose one or the other. Remember the case of Cruden v Neale on
page 33 of my book The New History of America and what
they said about natural law rights?

North Carolina Reports (Archive)
DAVIDSON v. ARLEDGE, 97 N.C. 172 (1887) 2 S.E. 378 Page 153 1.
The burden is on the plaintiff in this action, to show by a
preponderance of testimony, that he has title to the land
described in the complaint, and if the plaintiff has not
satisfied the jury by a preponderance of testimony that he is the
owner and has the title, the jury will respond to the first
issue, "No."

If the plaintiff has so
satisfied them, they will respond "Yes" to the first
issue. In actions for possession, the plaintiff may show title in
himself by connected chain of title from the State, or from the
Sovereign of the British Empire before the date of our
independence; or the plaintiff may show the title out of the
State, and possession under color of title for seven years; or
without exhibiting a title from the State or Sovereign, may show
continuous adverse possession under color of title for twenty-one
years; or after showing title out of the State by thirty years
actual possession, the plaintiff may show continuous adverse
possession in himself and those under whom he claims, for twenty
years before the action was brought."

Ok readers, do you remember this
quote from above? I'll bet 98 percent will say no. And it is
understandable, yet for the most part this is what gets people in
trouble when they agree but do not know that much about it to
argue. That is why boiler platers go to jail a lot quicker
because all they do is copy and don't fully understand the
argument. So here is the quote from the Davidson case.

"if an ALIEN could acquire
a permanent property in lands, he must owe an allegiance, equally
permanent with that property, TO THE KING OF ENGLAND, which would
probably be inconsistent with that which he owes to his own
natural liege-lord;"

How many ever caught this? Be
honest with yourself because look how lying, got Clinton into
trouble? What is inconsistent with your natural liege-lord? The
king. So the court stated that the King of England is not your
natural liege-lord. The Lord's property is His and under the same
principle, YOU, being the steward of the land under the
Almighty's command of His word, cannot allow the same thing that
the King is claiming. The king is the alien to our true
liege-lord and it is he and the State and the United States
corporate sole's that are in conflict with the Almighty's
contract with man at Genesis 17:1-9. So can we, as stewards of
the Almighty's property allow these aliens to claim the land that
is permanently our property to protect? Does our liege-lord say
we have to pay a property tax on land he gave us? Don't you think
this is a good start to rid us of this Satan controlled garbage
called the Pope, The King, The State, The United States, The
County, The Townships, the legislators and worst of all the "Woe
be unto you Lawyers?" Do this and why do you need a "republic?"
It, in legal terms, is a commercial bunch of people because it is
a commonwealth and that my dear people will put you right back on
the path to where you are now and history will repeat itself over
and over again. I wrote extensively that a "republic"
is not what you want in, Which One Are You, Would You use the
Constitution as a Source of Rights, The Big Lie and The BIG Lie
III Expanded. So is any body listening? Noooo, because look at
all the "de jure Republics" being formed all
across the country. Lack of knowledge has destroyed His people.